Timotheos,
For the sake of clarity I am posting your translation with my few comments. I offer only one slight adjustment in your translation. This adjustment is in verse 11. Your translation reads: "He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them. . . ." We could move the verb "believe" to the end of the pronominal clause to make the clause clearer and to avoid the mental confusion that naturally comes due to the fact that the verb "believe" is often followed with the preposition "in" to speak of the thing believed. We could translate the words, tōn pisteuontōn di' akrobustias, in a couple of other ways to make the thought clear. We could translate: "of those who believe, though uncircumcised." We could also translate the words: "of those who believe but are not of the circumcision." May I suggest that we translate it: "of those who believe while in the state of uncircumcision"?
9 Therefore is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). 10 How, then, was it reckoned? Was he in a state of circumcision or uncircumcision? He was not in a state of circumcision but uncircumcision! 11 He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe while in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them 12 and the father of the circumcision, to those not of the circumcision alone but are also ones who walk in the steps of faith of our father Abraham while in uncircumcision.
In my last entry I argued that "grammar matters. The person is not the direct object of the verbs reckon and forgive. Rather, the person is the indirect object of the verbs. God forgives sins, not people. Likewise, God's reckoning has in view Abraham's trust, positively, and David's lawlessnesses and sins, negatively." It is important to carry these thoughts forward into this passage, for, unless we are careful we may mangle Paul's distinctive redemptive-historically focused thoughts.
Paul's question of verse 9 ("Is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision?") concerns the blessing of which he has just spoken. What is this blessing? It is God's not reckoning my sins to me, or expressed positively, it is God's forgiveness of my iniquities and his covering of my sins. Three expressions--God's forgiving, God's not reckoning, and God's covering--depict this blessing. Notice also that in each case the person, I, am the indirect object of God's acts. My sins and iniquities are the direct object of God's acts. The grammar is significant. For the popular way of talking, that God reckoned Abraham righteous or that God reckons us righteous is not Paul's way of speaking in Romans 4:1-12. To speak this way does injury to the "bookkeeping imagery." Paul's "bookkeeping imagery" requires that we think of the accounts or records as belonging to people--Abraham, David, believers. What is in these accounts or records? Sins and iniquities, indicators of poverty and indebtedness before God, the one who keeps the books. But there is something else specifically mentioned in the case of Abraham; it is his belief in God who promised. It is this that Paul reiterates in verse 9: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” If the bookkeeping imagery continues, and it surely seems that it does, is not Paul saying that when God reckoned to Abraham his faith for righteousness that God canceled his indebtedness of sins? Is this not why Paul cites Psalm 32:1-2 concerning David's case? When David says, "Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon sin," is he not saying that God canceled his indebtedness incurred by his sins? Is this, then, not the point stated positively when Paul summarizes the matter as he does in verse 6 saying, "as David speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works" and again in verse 11 saying, "He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe while in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them"? In other words, then, it seems that the bookkeeping imagery requires that we understand that on the accounts page for Abraham, for David, and for us who believe, God has written the words "Debt forgiven" or "Debt paid in full" or "Debt cancelled" or "Righteousness." We would be wrong, however, to conclude that Abraham's or our belief is righteousness itself. Paul does not say this. He is careful to say that “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” The debt is canceled; Abraham's faith is credited, accounted, or reckoned for righteousness. Faith does not pay off the debt, for earlier, when Paul cites these same words from Genesis 15:6, he makes it clear that Abraham's faith does not pay off his indebtedness to God but actually places him even further in debt to God, but now as a debtor to God's grace: But to the one who works the wage is not reckoned to him according to grace but according to debt. But to the one who does not work but believes on him who declares the ungodly to be righteous, that one’s faith is reckoned for righteousness.
Yes, as we have just seen in his two summary statements, verses 6 and 11, Paul does speak of God's reckoning righteousness to believers. But observe that Paul does not say that God reckoned believers righteous. Once again, this may seem pedantic to some, but it is crucial, for to comment on this passage with such an expression is to speak sloppily, slovenly, and carelessly, running roughshod over Paul's bookkeeping imagery and to do injury to his refined theological expression. This is not to suggest that we should not and cannot speak of believers as justified. Furthermore, this is not to suggest that Paul sometimes uses the verb logizomai with people as the direct object. He does so in Romans 6:11; 8:36; 9:8; 1 Corinthians 4:1; etc. The point is this, that our translations and our theological comments upon a passage must reflect accurately the wording of the passage and remain consistent with the imagery that governs the passage.
Now I turn to offer a brief additional comment concerning your observation of the importance of taking note "that Paul is specifically dealing with the chronology of Abraham’s life, thus history matters." It is just as you have pointed out that "Paul sees that the statement ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ occurred prior to Abraham’s circumcision." Here for the sake of his argument in Romans 4, it is crucial that he focus upon the historical relationship of Abraham's believing God's promise and Abraham's being circumcised. His belief in the promise precedes his being circumcised. In Galatians 3, Paul also gives careful attention to historical sequence in the biblical text. There, however, his focus is upon the historical relationship between God's giving of the promise to Abraham and God's giving of the Law through intermediaries--angels and Moses (Galatians 3:15-20). In Galatians 3, sequence of God's acts in the movement of redemptive history is crucial to Paul's argument. In Romans 4, sequence of God's acts in the life of Abraham takes center stage. Simply from the sequence of the biblical narrative of the Abraham story, Paul contends that Abraham was in a state of uncircumcision, not in the state of circumcision when he believed an his faith was reckoned for righteousness (v. 10).
It is for this reason, then, that God rightly presents circumcision to Abraham as a "sign" and as a "seal of righteousness" and that God did not present circumcision to Abraham as righteousness itself. This is inherently present in Genesis 17, the narrative that speaks of God's giving circumcision to Abraham as a sign of the covenant. From the beginning, then, any Jew or Gentile proselyte who would invest in circumcision more than the Lord invested in it did so to their own peril. Circumcision had sign value. As a sign, then, from the beginning circumcision was utterly worthless apart from belief in the promise, following in the footsteps of Abraham who believed God who promises (as per Paul's argument in Romans 2). From the beginning, circumcision was powerless to effect either righteousness or belief in the promise; rather, circumcision was an external sign that pointed to the need of the internal reality of belief in the God who promises. As such, then, it was a "seal of the righteousness of faithfulness," an expression that requires some closer attention.
Before I offer any comments on that latter expression, however, it is fitting to pause for a moment to reflect upon the portentous consequence of what Paul says in verse 11 before what he says in verse 12. "Portentous" is James R. Edwards' word to describe what Paul is saying (Romans, NIBC [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992], 118). Edwards rightly observes: "Abraham was the father of Gentile believers before he was the father of Jewish believers, for he was the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, before he was the father of the covenant. His becoming forefather of the Jews was a subsequent specification of an original fatherhood of all who believe, namely, of Gentiles. Thus, both Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (and in that order!) may appeal to Abraham as father" (pp. 118-119). This truly is portentous, as Edwards says. It is full of wonder and awe. In other words, Paul subtly reinforces a crucial point he has made earlier when he asked, "What then? Are we Jews any better [than Gentiles]?" (Romans 3:9).
Now for a brief comment on the phrase "righteousness of faithfulness." Timotheos, you asked, "Paulos, in your last note, you mentioned something regarding how Abraham not only typified (in a typological sense) the believer, whose faith is reckoned for righteousness, but also how Abraham typified Christ, the righteous one. Would this phrase be an indication of that?" Though I will not go to the wall for what I am about to say, I do wonder if Paul's expression, sphagida tēs dikaiosunēs tēs pisteōs tēs en tē akroobustia (σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ) does not have reference to something bigger and outside Abraham's faith. It seems to me that it has grammatical reference to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (refer to our earlier discussion of Romans 3:21ff) and that it has historical reference to the thing promised and thus believed by Abraham rather than to Abraham's belief itself. It is an expression that we find again with variation in Romans 9:30 and 10:6, which, in my estimation, likely have reference to Christ's faithfulness.
I realize that this final paragraph is more tantalizing than explanatory. I have, however, other duties that I must attend at the moment. So, this must suffice for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment